Meta

On the plus side, as Michelle says, it’s a move that should be welcomed, and it’d be interesting to see how other Universities will approach such an open handed approach with their education programmes.

BUT, looking at that syllabus, it’s rather depressing the way that it reflects a good deal of the discussion around social media and democracy outside of the halls of academe. It mixes the laudable reflections on the disruptive potential of the technology in enabling pro-democracy movements within repressive societies with a series of rather abstract questions combining social theory with the observations of digital evangelists about how the growing influence of digital natives will change things.

But here it is again: The questions of representative democracy, how it will be effected by these disruptive changes – and the things that everybody needs to know (how does technology prove to be an asset to groups that hope to increase their social capital) seem to be absent.

This seems to be the ugly duckling at almost every party. I suspect that – if I were to look hard enough – I’d find a reference to this stuff somewhere.

But it’s lack of prominence here strikes me as somewhat lazy. A preference for abstraction.

That post includes a spot of profanity – but not too much. I’m only pointing to this in lieu of a post that I’ve been meaning to write about non-elected organisations have a good deal less legitimacy than elected ones, yet we demand more transparency and accountability from people who have been voted for.

I’d argue that this is the wrong way around. That the Arts Council can behave the way it has in recent years would suggest that I’m in a minority on this one….

“Two years after launching the most technologically savvy presidential campaign in history, Obama officials ran smack into the constraints of the federal bureaucracy yesterday, encountering a jumble of disconnected phone lines, old computer software, and security regulations forbidding outside e-mail accounts.

What does that mean in 21st-century terms? No Facebook to communicate with supporters. No outside e-mail log-ins. No instant messaging. Hard adjustments for a staff that helped sweep Obama to power through, among other things, relentless online social networking.”

Peter Mandelson: Probably not as keen on encouraging his political grassroots to interact as he could be?

There’s a terrific post here, authored by Dave Briggs – brimming with positivity and enthusiasm as ever. It’s a really good round up, and a good introduction to what is possible for users that already have their heads in the right place.

I’d add a number of observations to it that I hope make sense.

Firstly, I’ve not found a good briefing anywhere that makes the basic moral case for interactivity – particularly aimed at local politicians and officers. This is really what we’re talking about here when we strip out the actual applications. Something that mirrors the biblical Parable of the Talents.

Niccolò Machiavelli - a bit sceptical about all of this 'candour' business

Shorter version: If you’re a politician, it may be a good idea to get into blogging. But do it under a pen-name! It’s safer that way, and it will make you better at your job.

This is an old-ish question nowadays. And as the big question around social media at the moment is ‘should everyone Twitter‘, I think it may be a good time to revisit the question of blogging – now that the one-note evangelism for the medium has died down.

I’m not convinced that most politicians should set up an official blog of their own, or formally blog in their own name. Annoyingly, this is not a common view. Daniel Hannan, a UK Conservative Party MEP says it’s a good idea.

The inestimable Shane McCracken of Gallomanor also thinks they should – indeed, he goes further and asks if leaders should blog (three different times – here, here and here).

Hereabouts

Join us on LinkedIn

What’s this all about?

Visit the Local Democracy Blog bookshop on Amazon.
A blog about representative democracy, social media and a conversational politics. It aims to explore the impact that social media will have upon local democracy, and to look at the ways that the meaning of the word representation may be changing.